A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011

A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 1

RUSSIA 1894-1924 A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 2 Russia in 1900

Russia was a deeply class-ridden, anachronistic society at the start of the new century. A country of secret police, juryless courts, enforced exile, Cossack sabres and the reactionary Orthodox, Russian Church. People still starved to death in great famines like that of 1891, which killed 350 000.

Remaining essentially agrarian, industrialisation was confined to certain areas like the Donetz basin and the area around St. Petersburg. Coal and iron production remained small, especially in comparison with the output of western European countries, though Russia did have massive oil reserves.

The Peasantry

30 000 landowners owned as much land as 10 million peasants. 86% of the population remained on the land. A lot of Russia was unfit for cultivation anyway. Most was taiga and tundra, only 5% of the land could be ploughed in the short growing seasons, which ironically led to overpopulation and land hunger in certain areas, and a total lack of people in others. Rural overpopulation was not tackled compassionately, but by industrialisation and emigration to Siberia (a huge area with only 9 million inhabitants).

Farming methods were primitive, including methods like strip farming and leaving land fallow, approaches that had not been seen in the rest of Europe for centuries. Nearly all ploughing was still done by animals. Mechanisation had not reached most Russian farms. Land was held in communes (mirs) and the system of land distribution resulted in small homesteads, which could barely support a family. Peasants, the poorest members of society, were the most heavily taxed element. In return they got very little: few schools, almost no access to higher education, no doctors or hospitals.

Peasants tended to be innately conservative and superstitious. Self- sufficient and reliant on vodka for their ailments; work was very much gender specific.

In 1861, the emancipation of the serfs had led to the need for compensation payments for 49 years. The problem was that the mir system resulted in smaller plots of land, and given the indemnity payments had been over-estimated (in favour of the land-owners), real hardship and resentment had resulted.

Instead of addressing these problems, the government spent money on industry and the military, in search of greater imperial power.

The Urban Proletariat

There was an increasing urban working class due to conscious government policies aimed at rapidly modernising Russia.

Russia’s modernisation was slow and laborious, with the Trans-Siberian railway, e.g., only half complete by 1900. Even when it was finished in A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 3 1904, it was still only single track and would have to wait until the 1930s and Stalin’s time, before it got a second one.

Russian industrialisation was hampered by a lack of capital (which she had to raise through foreign loans) and the crucial absence of a year-long ice- free port (the desire for which was to get her into a number of foreign entanglements, especially in the Far East and the Balkans).

For the drones of this economy, life was staggeringly hard. Employed in factories, mills, mines and quarries their lives were back-breaking; they were ill-treated and over-worked by rapacious bosses. Living conditions were equally wretched (overcrowding, disease, high infant mortality and low life expectancy); wages were kept low, especially in over-populated areas like the Donetz basin and Moscow. Psychological despair must have been great for those torn away from their native villages to live in a corner of a lice-ridden room in an unfriendly and unfamiliar town or city.

The Middle Class

Small in number compared to those of Western Europe (in 1850 there had been only 114 000), they nevertheless included the highly educated, cultured and militarily trained, as well as shopkeepers and bureaucrats.

Many imbibed western ideas and some even spoke French in preference to Russian. They resented the privileges of the nobility.

Despite their talents, they were ignored by the ruling class, and so were a frustrated and angry element of society, not dis-similar to the Dantons of the French Revolution. Culturally and socially isolated from the vast majority of their countrymen, the intelligentsia were, arguably, to be more important than any other group in helping to bring about the downfall of the Romanovs.

The Aristocracy

Rich, idle, French-speaking, highly cultured in some ways, they were almost an alien class in their own land, not helped by the fact that many were of German descent. They were despised and envied, a feudalistic anachronism who no longer justified their continued (expensive) existence.

Highly numerous (even a relatively small landowner might very well be a ‘prince’; in 1858 there were one million nobles) and parasitic, they literally owned most of the country, but like the middle classes felt their talents were largely neglected by the autocratic regime. The regime’s laws meant that on the death of the head of the family, his property was to be divided amongst all his male heirs, meaning impoverishment for many of them and few opportunities to do anything else, as the bureaucracy was already over-staffed by penurious nobles.

This then was the Russia of 1900. The problem was that by 1917 things had not really changed for the better, but had, in fact, got far worse.

What common grievances did all the classes share? A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 4 A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 5 The Major Players

Sergei Witte (1849-1915)

One of those especially despised aristocrats of German descent, university educated, he was something of an outsider having married a Jewish divorcee. He was also arrogant and an elitist.

Witte, nevertheless, was a supremely able individual and one of the few outstanding men to have served Nicholas II, but then Nicholas had inherited him from his father, whom Witte had served loyally. Seton- Watson describes him as: “one of the outstanding statesmen of the 19th century, a brilliant organiser and a man of broad ideas”. Teddy Roosevelt, the US president however, despised him calling him “selfish” and implying he was an egotist.

Witte continued with the expansionist and generally successful economic policies he had begun under Alexander III. He brought energy and a sense of urgency to his job, something that could not be said of most of the Tsar’s ministers - or even of the Tsar himself.

Witte created a climate that fostered industrial growth and progress, and encouraged new technology. Having made his name as a railway expert, the vital Trans-Siberian railway was largely his baby.

He brought foreign capital and investment to Russia, and this stimulated growth in the areas of railways, mining, banking and commerce (in 1897 he had related Russia’s currency to the gold standard making it a proper world currency). He dramatically increased foreign investment form 98 million roubles in 1880 to 911 million roubles in 1900. Witte also helped to increase Russia’s trade balance, by imposing protectionist tariffs.

He had no qualms though about exporting wheat, even when famine threatened and, in fact, largely ignored the welfare of Russia’s majority class.

Unfortunately, for both him and Russia, his ministry coincided with a period of economic slump and he consequently lost his post in 1903, sacked by an ungrateful Nicholas. He became Russia’s first ever Prime Minister in 1905 after the 1905 disturbances, supported the duma, but survived only a short while, as even his moderate progressivism was not to Nicholas’ reactionary tastes. He was replaced by the conservative Goremykin. It seems that Russia’s ruler didn’t even have the sense to recognise good fortune and wise counsel, as when Witte advised against going to war in 1914. A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 6 Pytor Stolypin (1862-1911)

Chief Minister from 1906, he was assassinated in 1911. Like Witte, a landowner, he was a “complex and controversial character” according to Evans and Jenkins. He would ruthlessly crush peasant disturbances, but at the same time had a genuine concern for them, and a belief he could win them over to Tsarism, hence his creation of the kulak class.

Stolypin probably did more than any other Russian to stave off the disaster of revolution. He perceptively used a mixture of carrot and stick, including reform, to try and improve on matters. Many historians now claim that Russia between 1905 -1914 underwent definite improvements and saw unprecedented industrial progress, partly as a result of Stolypin’s dynamism. Certainly, the Germans were worried about a resurgent Russia and wanted a war before 1916, when they believed Russia would have modernised its armed forces. However, Evans and Jenkins have disputed his impact, claiming that given the conservatism of the Russian peasant it is unlikely that his agricultural policy would ever have succeeded.

One of his main approaches was to adopt (limited) agricultural reform. He argued the regime needed to get the peasants on its side. To this extent he drew up plans to abolish the mir system. Millions of peasants left the mir and were able to migrate to the towns and cities. He reduced the powers of the hated Land Captains. He also tried to deal with rural overpopulation through a system of internal colonisation and introduced primogeniture to ensure farms were not broken up into tiny parcels. Peasants could even purchase land through loans from the Peasants Land Bank. His motives were pragmatic: a class of independent and happy peasant farmers would provide a stable base of support for the regime.

Stolypin also brought in educational reforms: the no. of primary schools almost doubled between 1905-1914; he increased expenditure on health, poor relief and agricultural advice and support. His idea for the reintroduction of elected magistrates was approved after his death. His attempts at introducing religious toleration for the Jews though were vetoed by the Tsar, as were his attempts to give more regional power to minority peoples like the Poles.

However, Stolypin also suppressed, with extreme ruthlessness, every sign of revolt and protest. The ‘Stolypin necktie’ being a feature of his methods, and though strike actions decreased under his rule, the number of executions went up from 10 in 1905 to 825 by 1908! A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 7 His reforming zeal made him suspect to reactionaries (who probably had him killed) and his dictatorial methods alienated the liberals. The extreme left had always hated him, and had tried to blow him up in 1906. Nicholas glad to see him gone (especially after Stolypin had criticised Rasputin), reappointed the reluctant and reactionary, 74 year old Goremykin to the vacant post.

Oxley claims Stolypin’s relatively moderate reformist policies had been appropriate to Russia at that moment in its history. Seton-Watson also minimises Stolypin’s impact and the significance of his reforms. Evans and Jenkins in his defence say his reforms never got the 20 years he had asked for them to be successful.

On the whole it would be most accurate to say that both he and Witte had achieved too little too late.

Goremykin, Stolypin’s reactionary successor A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 8 Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov (1870-1924) (Lenin)

Happiest behind a desk rather than a barricade?

Born in 1870 into a prosperous upper-middle class family, Lenin had begun to read law at Kazan University before being expelled. He did eventually receive his degree, externally, in 1891 from St. Petersburg University.

As a well-educated individual and gifted polyglot from the privileged classes, Lenin had certain obvious advantages in a country, where the vast majority could still not read nor write and never went to school.

His beloved radical brother Alexander’s execution, in 1887, had already turned the embittered Vladimir against the regime.

In 1893 he moved to St, Petersburg, becoming the leader of a Marxist organisation two years later. In 1895, he was arrested for his political activities and exiled to the wastes of Siberia for 3 years (where he acquired his revolutionary name).

By 1900 he was editing a paper (‘Spark’) that advocated the violent overthrow of the Tsar by the proletariat. Even at this stage, Lenin was no democrat, arguing instead for centralised control of the workers organisation and strict ideological uniformity.

By 1903, his Social democrats had split into the Bolsheviks (‘the majority’) who believed a revolution should be tightly controlled and led, and a smaller group called the Mensheviks (‘the minority’) who believed the masses should be more involved (at this stage Trotsky was a Menshevik). The latter with their less dictatorial, more inclusive views were isolated and eventually ejected from Lenin’s party by 1912. Lenin had no time for mass politics - or dissenters. A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 9 Lenin was a patient man, unlike the more ardent Trotsky, and he took no part in the aborted uprisings of 1905. Lenin was interested in a movement of highly professional, full-time, dedicated revolutionaries not in genuine mass movements. In many ways Lenin was more an organiser, a leader, an ideologue, than a street-fighter like Trotsky or Stalin. His approach and emphasis on intricate planning was to be certainly proved right in October 1917, when the small Bolshevik party were to seize control of the Revolution – and, eventually, after years of civil war, of the whole country.

Lenin remains a very controversial character: adored and venerated by some, despised by others. ‘Time’ magazine voted him ‘Man of the Century’, but largely for his negative impact on world affairs.

Historians remain equally divided about him and his actions.

The left-wing Christopher Hill claims the revolution improved the life of the downtrodden masses.

Pipes, in stark contrast, calls Lenin an elitist, who showed little compassion for his victims, and was full of contempt for the ordinary Russian. Lenin’s own ruthless orders from the Civil War suggest his willingness to sacrifice the people themselves for the sake of the Revolution.

Shukman stresses how Lenin’s regime accustomed the Russian people to brutality and repression, thus laying the foundations for Stalinism.

Post-communist Russian historians like Volkogonov also stress that the evil of Stalin began with Lenin.

Lewin suggests Lenin was forced by circumstances and the nature of Russia, to act in the ways he did and had he lived he would have changed things for the better.

“Do as you’re told – or else…” Lenin Addressing the Crowd, Spring 1917 A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 10 Nicholas II (1894-1917):The Last Romanov Tsar

Weak & Incompetent, but nicely dressed and moustachioed

Weak, vacillating, but committed to the autocracy and his dynasty, Nicholas was in many ways typical of the rest of his Romanov relatives. Even with all these limitations, however, he might still have survived to die in his bed, if WWI had not broken out. However, given his role in helping to bring about the war and his own disastrous handling of it, he perhaps, characteristically, brought on his own doom, the view increasingly of contemporary historians like Orlando Figges.

Demands for reform were dismissed as “senseless dreams”. He dismissed the able Witte; appointed reactionaries like Meshersky and Goremykin, and showed himself an incompetent ruler. His unpopular, pushy and domineering German wife (Alexandra) did not help with people’s perceptions of him.

Political groups, like the Socialist Revolutionaries, grew in strength, despite heavy persecution and liberal use of Siberian exile and the gallows. Assassination though, remained very common in Tsarist Russia as a means of protest – often because it was the only option open to a discontented people.

The Marxist Social Democrats under Lenin and Menshikov, were also beginning to become a thorn in the government’s side. (Constitutional parties, like the Kadets, were also set up by his opponents).

Nicholas’ disastrous and vindictive handling of the disturbances of 1905 (wrongly described as a revolution), only increased the opposition to him. His setting up of a national parliament in 1906 (the duma) was initially a promising step, but Nicholas, being Nicholas, quickly emasculated its powers, and stifled further reforms.

Nicholas himself thought the people regarded him as their ‘little father’ and saw the unpopular, corrupt and dissolute Rasputin as his link with the simple masses. In 1917, Nicholas believed he could just order the people to stop striking and they would. It was a disastrous mis-reading of the situation and one that had been apparent ever since 1894. In Robert Service’s succinct phrase: “Nicholas had an 18th century mentality for a 20th century crisis”.

To Nicholas’s credit, financial and economic developments did take place in his reign, especially under the able, if ruthless Pytor Stolypin. However, the Tsar never gave him his complete support and seemed almost relieved A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 11 when Stolypin, the man who was trying to save his regime, was assassinated in a theatre in 1911 (probably by an agent of his rightist, conservative enemies, than by the left).

Nicholas was always perhaps his own worst enemy, as the unimaginative frequently are. And he has to bear a huge part of the blame for 1917. However, given the problems of his huge empire it is hard to see how any man could have coped, even less a mediocrity like Nicky.

The huge Russian empire

REVISION ACROSTICS

NOUN VERB ADJECTIVE R U S S I A

NOUN VERB ADJECTIVE N I C H O L A S A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 12 Opposition Groups

Russia in the 19th century had had a history of elitist or middle class dominated groups who had plotted to change the system and/or overthrow the Romanovs.

The Decembrists of 1825 (an especially elitist grouping of idealistic officers and aristocrats) were the inspiration for other successive groups who protested actively or passively against the autocratic tsars. There was also Narodnya Volya, a terrorist group, who assassinated a number of prominent establishment figures, including a tsar.

The late 19th and early 20th century opposition to the government can be described as consisting of four main groups who were very different, however, in their aims and tactics.

The Social Democratic Party (SDP)

Split, in 1903, into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

a) The Bolsheviks: led by Lenin, believed the masses were too ignorant, un-educated and apathetic to lead a revolution, so an elite group would have to do the dirty work. Basically Marxists, they were to be active in all three major uprisings: the 1905, February 1917 and October 1917, though really only the ring-leaders in the latter revolution, which would come to be known as the ‘Bolshevik revolution’.

It was perhaps a fundamental paradox of Bolshevism that they stressed the leadership of an elite, and the importance of the urban proletariat, in a country teeming not with industrial workers, but with peasants.

b) The Mensheviks: Less radical or violently inclined than the Bolsheviks, they wanted a greater degree of mass participation in any future revolution. They had a more democratic structure than the autocratic Lenin would allow the Bolsheviks. Julius Martov would lead the Mensheviks, and firmly believed that revolution would fail without the full and genuine support of the whole working class. Consequently, they wanted a mass party with as many members as possible. Trotsky was a Menshevik until converted by Lenin in 1917.

Julius Martov A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 13 c) The Socialist Revolutionaries (SR’s)

The SR’s had both a rather violent and rather unsuccessful, but relatively long, history of opposition to the Tsars (they would also try and assassinate Lenin in 1918). Its radical forerunners had included Nechayev and Alexander Ulyanov. The latter had tried to assassinate Alexander III and been hanged for it. This had devastated his 17 year old younger brother, who had read about the grisly execution in a newspaper. This boy, Vladimir who swore revenge was to become the embittered and driven, Lenin.

The SR’s in fact were the most violent of all the revolutionary groups. Their terrorist wing, the Narodnya Volya (People’s Will) had successfully assassinated besides one Tsar, numerous police and army officers, government ministers and a Grand Duke.

The basic ideology of the SR’s and N.V. stressed the importance of the peasantry and the rural system of settlement known as the obschnina. The SR’s showed their nationalist side in their faith in Russia’s supposedly unique systems which, they claimed, made socialism or communism more likely in Russia than anywhere else in Europe. Given the basic ignorance, political impotence and conservatism of the peasantry they were always a less practical party than the far more pragmatic, and ruthless, Bolsheviks. Alexander Kerensky was an SR. d) The Liberals (Kadets)

This was the middle class party, committed to reform along constitutional lines, so avoiding bloody revolution. They wanted a democratic, peaceful and so prosperous Russia. Composed of the business and professional classes, even these reasonable moderates were ignored by the intransigent and incorrigible Tsar.

Under the Provisional Government, after the February 1917, revolution, they dominated Russia until the Bolshevik putsch in October 1917. They were the true heirs of the Decembrists and the ideas of Tolstoy and the younger Doestoyevsky. However, being middle class and rather attached to the ideas of Western liberalism, they were regarded with hostility by the more radical groups and with indifference by the illiterate masses: both before and after 1917.

Such groups as those above, were both successful and ineffectual. The Tsar was indeed partially overthrown due to them in the winter of 1917, as they provided the leadership for, and eventually helped to radicalise, the initial revolution. However, their role has often been over-stated. Without WWI and the hardships it brought, it is still doubtful whether there would have been any revolution at all.

Fr. Gapon A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 14 The 1905 Uprisings

Long-Term Causes (The In-Direct Reasons) (See Previous Notes)

Short-Term Causes (The Direct Reasons)  A series of bad harvests had led to peasants defaulting on their mortgages  The Minister of the Interior (Plehve) who made extensive use of the Okhrana was hated  Limitations on the powers of the zemstva were resented

Trigger Factors

1904-5 Russo-Japanese War ‘Bloody Sunday’ January 1905 Incredibly, the enormous and unwieldy enough Russian empire embarked on an A peaceful demonstration, led by Fr. expansionist and imperialist war aimed at Gapon, and involving 200 000 seizing an ice-free port in Manchuria or peaceful, placard and ikon carrying Korea. workers, resulted in a massacre Another motive was to divert attention before the gates of the Winter Palace away from massive internal problems, in St. Petersburg. made worse by an economic slump. The war went disastrously wrong, not Given the demonstrators were surprisingly given the incompetent way in carrying images of the Tsar and which it was fought over badly extended merely protesting their poverty and lines of communication. The Russians hunger, the massacre (condoned by were defeated on land and at sea, notably Nicholas) triggered off a mass at the battle of the Tsushima Straits reaction that became know as the (1905), where their fleet was annihilated. 1905 revolution. Certainly, the The war led to further shortages and massacre destroyed many peoples’ hardships for an already downtrodden illusions about their ‘little father’. people.

Nature of the Uprisings

 Some members of the armed forces mutinied, including sailors on the Potemkin  Some peasants responded to the riots going on and did revolt in certain areas  Some subject peoples tried to declare independence e.g. Finns, Poles & Georgians  Workers in towns like Odessa and Moscow did go on strike, but many others saw no disturbances  In certain isolated cases workers councils or soviets were set up to run the district A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 15

The Consequences

 Nicholas had the soviets crushed, ringleaders exiled and executed, and he condoned the murderous activities of the reactionary Black Hundreds  The Tsar, however, was ultimately forced to give way and his ‘October Manifesto’ of 1905 promised reforms  Free speech and political parties were allowed for the first time  A national parliament (the Duma) was set up  In 1906 when the Duma first met, the Tsar issued the Fundamental Laws stating he was still very much in charge ST  1 Duma lasted only 75 days and was quickly dismissed; the second lasted barely 3 months; the 3rd Duma lasted five years, but had been drained of many of its powers, and packed with pro-Tsarists. The fourth and last was equally emascuulated.  Russia remained an autocracy under its incorrigible and intransigent tsar

The 1905 was not really a revolution, as Evans and Jenkins have stressed. It did not result in the overthrow of the Tsar nor did it bring radical enough change. It had been only sporadically supported and was a not a mass uprising. It had not been planned or well orchestrated. Trotsky, who unlike Lenin, was personally involved and at the barricades, dismissed it as a “dress rehearsal” for the real thing. The Left had not been fully prepared or as effective as they were to be in 1917, when the situation would be far more ripe for lasting change, primarily because of WWI and the way Nicholas handled it. A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 16 1906-1914: Tsarist Survival and Recovery

Historians have argued that this period saw a Tsarist resurgence. Nicholas was back in control for a no. of reasons:

 The opposition was incohesive and disunited, while the army remained loyal;  No overall leader had emerged in 1905, as there would in 1917;  Fear of anarchy and disorder had driven the respectable classes back into the arms of the Tsar and the forces of law and order; Peter Struve, a Marxist, but later a Kadet, even exclaimed: “Thank God for the tsar who has saved us from the people”;

The constitutional veneer to Nicholas’ power with the creation of a state duma gave the illusion of a partnership, which Nicholas had no intention of honouring. He skewed the duma in favour of the right-wing and nationalist groups, successively reducing the nos. of extreme left-wing members from 154 in the first duma to only 25 by the fourth.

When discussion of issues like the Jews, Poland, land redistribution and factory reform came up, Nicholas simply dissolved the body.

Some improvements had been made between 1904-7 including the right of political parties to exist, the relaxation of censorship and greater freedom of expression. Educational spending rose from 1.8% of the budget in 1905 to 4.2% in 1914. University places increased, there were more secondary school places and literacy levels rose. At last the government had recognised that it needed a better educated population to become a Great Power.

However, Nicholas’ regime remained essentially autocratic. Agitators were still exiled to Siberia; the army continued to used against strikers and the secret police remained a ubiquitous presence. Religious tolerance was never implemented and a universal system of education remained a mirage. Only 0.07% of the population went to university (admittedly the same in equally elitist GB), 5.2% to primary school and less than half a percent onto secondary school. Relations between the government and academia remained poor, as freedom of debate was still controlled.

After 1912, the regime became more and more isolated. In 1912, a massacre of strikers in the Lena goldfields saw 270 shot dead by the army. Peasants remained discontented and workers denied basic rights. Strikes, disturbances in the countryside and general unrest increased substantially, between 1912-1914, according to Evans and Jenkins.

During Stolypin’s reign of power there had been far fewer disturbances. However, to say that one man even had he lived could have saved the regime, and he was already losing the Tsar’s confidence by 1911, is a vast over-simplification of Russia’s enormous problems. A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 17 THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION 1917

Grigory Rasputin Bad PR for the Romanovs

The first revolution of 1917 was brought about by short-term industrial and social unrest. It was fermented into political opposition by a number of long-term factors such as fundamental opposition to Tsarist autocracy.

St. Petersburg (or Petrograd, as it was known to patriots) was the centre of, and inspiration behind, the revolt, just as it had been of the political turmoil and numerous strikes between 1912-1914. Pipes is adamant that revolution broke out “spontaneously without preparation and exclusively on the basis of the supply crisis”.

Russia on the eve of war had serious weaknesses and limitations.

Area Russia’s Position Population The largest and least educated in Europe National Income The lowest of the Great Powers (only a fifth of GB’s) Industry’s Contribution Again, the lowest of the four Great Powers (GB, Germany and to GNP Austro-Hungary) Coal Fifth in rank of production Steel Fourth in production Cotton Third in amount of raw cotton consumed Oil Second in terms of production Production of Machines Only 3% of Russia’s production was machinery Value of Foreign Trade One-sixth of GB’s

Given that Russia was so largely unprepared for war in 1914, it is no surprise that WWI triggered off and made worse, a simmering stew of discontent. There had been military defeats at the Masurian Lakes and Tannenberg in East Prussia (according to Erik Durschmied, the bloodiest battles in global history), the result of poor morale, incompetent leadership (according to German General, Max Hoffmann, the Russian soldiers were bears led by donkeys) and equipment shortages (many soldiers had no rifles or boots, and there were acute shortages of artillery shells and bullets). Casualties were massive and Russia was to lose 1.9 million dead alone, by 1918.

The Minister of War was the corrupt, inefficient and pro-German Vladimir Sukhominlov. A court favourite of Nicholas, Evans and Jenkins claim he was to be more responsible for the disasters that lay ahead, than anybody else. Conditions on the home front were equally appalling, with starvation common as food either failed to arrive in the cities or rotted at sidings due to inadequate freight systems. A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 18

The war had made the inadequacies of a weak regime even more obvious than usual, especially by depriving the economy of 15 million service men. The problems the war would cause to an already tottering regime were realised by some of the more intelligent Tsarist ministers, one of whom even advised the Tsar that agreement with Germany was better than a war: P.N. Durnovo predicted social revolution, the disintegration of the army and hopeless anarchy in the likely event of military setbacks (even the Italian PM, Giolitti warned the Tsar of what might happen, if defeat occurred)! Durnovo was proved right, as disrupted transport systems resulted in food, fuel and raw materials shortages. As a result in 1915, 573 mills and factories had to suspend production, an especial disaster in time of war. In 1916, blast furnaces were shut down. These various problems caused increasing riots, as workers froze and starved to death in the especially bitter winter (1916/17).

Instead of suppressing the unrest as they had in 1905, the army joined the strikers and this is what turned unrest into genuine revolution.

150 000 men of the St. Petersburg garrison deserted and regiments mutinied and shot their officers. The arsenal was looted and 40 000 rifles were distributed.

Centuries and decades of failure by the Tsarist autocracy to face the problems of Russia and its people had collided with a disastrous war – against an organised, professional and ruthless foe (Imperial Germany).

The Tsar had revealed his usual traits of obstinacy and incompetence that this time finally led the army to desert him. It was not so much the war they were against, rather the way the war was being run. Right to the end, the Tsar had proved himself no politician, ignoring all the warnings and actually leaving St. Petersburg at the moment of greatest crisis. Instead of addressing grievances and preparing to compromise, he resorted to his usual autocratic tactics of reinforcing the police and the army. He had even, stupidly (and against the advice of even his close family), taken command of the army in 1916, which meant any future defeats could be blamed directly on him.

What replaced Nicholas’ government was a Provisional Government composed of liberals and democrats from the Duma. More radical soviets were, however, also established in various towns and cities. These two systems were eventually to fight it out for control of the government and this is what led to the second and ultimate Bolshevik revolution: the October Revolution.

(It is important to note that the role of the peasantry in the initial phrases of both 1917 revolutions was limited. They were not the instigators of the revolutions in the short-term, but because of long term factors and centuries of mis-treatment they gave them their support, and in turn, the Revolution momentum and purpose). A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 19 FEBRUARY-OCTOBER 1917 & THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION

The Provisional Government that came about after the February Revolution and the abdication of Nicholas (March 2nd ), was composed of 12 members, many Freemasons and including liberals and democrats like P.N. Milyukov and left-wingers like Alexander Kerensky of the SR Labour faction. Its first leader, however, was an aristocrat, Prince Lvov, demonstrating how cosmopolitan and classless the first revolution of 1917 was.

Kerensky (Left) Salutes The Troops Great orator, but ruthless enough to deal with the Bolsheviks?

The PG’s aim was a constitutional government, but it was never popular with national minorities and radicals. Crucially, it also wanted to continue the war against Germany.

The PG was ineffectual not only because it had little popular support, but because of its own actions such as disbanding the police force and abolishing censorship, etc. It had already lost control of the army to the Bolshevik revolutionaries who had purged the officer corps (Order No. 1).

In fact, there already existed an alternative government to the PG – the Petrograd soviet, along with other soviets throughout Russia. The soviets wanted radical action not vague, democratic compromises.

In July, the Bolsheviks attempted to seize power, but the time was not right. Lenin was subsequently exiled by the leader of the PG: Alexander Kerensky.

Kerensky personified and reflected his own government’s failings: he was weak, moderate, uninspiring and indecisive. Lenin (and his party), on the other hand, was strong (and getting stronger), popular, resolute and determined. Kerensky was especially hated in radical Kronstadt.

In April, Lenin released his manifesto (the April Theses). These were attractive to the poorer, and more radical, elements in society and said that:

 the war with Germany should be ended immediately;  land should be given to the peasants; April Theses  no support was to be given to the PG; Bread! Peace!  “all power to the soviets” became a dominant theme; Land!  banks, etc. were to be nationalised; Freedom! A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 20 Further bloody defeats in June 1917 made the atmosphere even more ripe for still further change. Kerensky remained intransigent: the War must go on.

In the autumn, the peasants began to seize land but were brutally repressed by Kerensky’s troops. However, many peasants continued to seize land and kill their former landlords. As a result of these rural disturbances, harvests were neglected and food shortages resulted, making the situations in the towns and cities even more volatile.

In the armed forces, Order No. 1 had helped cause anarchy. Officers, were ignored or killed. Mass numbers of men simply deserted.

Kornilov’s mutiny in the summer (a man said to have the heart of a lion, but the brains of a sheep) had shown that the soldiers would not shoot their fellow workers or do the bidding of reactionary generals. Kornilov’s attempt to keep the war going, to suppress the revolution and install a strong man had failed dismally. He would go on to be killed fighting for the Whites in the civil war against the Bolsheviks.

Some historians feel Kerensky’s plan was to arm the Bolsheviks to crush Kornilov; others, however, argue, Kerensky hoped Kornilov’s putsch would destroy the Bolsheviks. In reality, by arming the Bolsheviks, Kerensky gave both credibility and weapons to the radicals, while making the PG look even weaker.

The PG though had achieved a number of liberal reforms during its time in power. It had:

 announced an amnesty for all political and religious prisoners;  replaced the police with a peoples’ militia;  introduced independent judges, trail by jury and abolished capital punishment and exile;  removed restrictions on personal freedoms and abolished censorship;  abolished racial, ethnic and religious discrimination;  introduced electoral reforms and proposed a democratic general election for the Constituent Assembly;

Of course, such reforms played into the hands of the fanatics who could now plot the overthrow of the constitutional system without the hindrances they had suffered under the Tsarist autocracy.

In late October (early November by the modern, Gregorian calendar), the Bolsheviks (wiser after the aborted July Days fiasco) seized Petrograd by taking over key installations and the Winter Palace, which was poorly defended by the Women’s and cadets battalions assigned to guard it. The actual storming of the Winter Place was very much a symbolic event. The other key installations (the post office, power stations, telegraph offices and bridges, etc) were far more crucial to secure. The glorious storming of the Winter Place is a Bolshevik myth (like the others they were to propagate). The reality was two dead, and an orgy of drunken vandalism. The Tsar had long abdicated, and the Romanov’s 304 year history was at an end. Appropriately enough it had ingloriously fizzled out. A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 21 COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS

1905 FEB. 1917 OCT. 1917 EFFECTS OF WAR

ARMED FORCES’ ATTITUDE

ATTITUDE OF LIBERAL OPPOSITION

EFFECT ON PRESTIGE OF ROYAL FAMILY

NATURE OF SOCIO- ECONOMIC PROBS.

TSARS’ ACTIONS

IMPACT ON NATION A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 22 CAUSES OF THE 1917 FEBRUARY REVOLUTION

The Bolsheviks

L-T Factors Rasputin

Strikes Nicholas II Army & Riots Mutinies

Peasants All Classes Revolt in Revolt

Look at the jumbled reasons for the first revolution of 1917. Rearrange them into their relative order of importance, with the most important at the top and the least significant near the bottom of the diamond.

IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF THE OCTOBER 1917 REVOLUTION

Political  SOVNARKOM (New Govt.) established BUT  Not all Soviets were Bolshevik  Only 14/25 Members of SOVNARKOM were Bolsheviks  SR’s still more popular with peasantry  Censorship enforced on anti-Bolshevik press  Secret police (the Cheka) set up

Social Military  Working day limited to 8 hours  Peace with Germany pursued – at all  48 hour working week established costs  Overtime and holiday entitlements  Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed in March  Unemployment Insurance created 1918 = severe conditions applied  Marriage laws liberalised; divorce  Germans able to withdraw troops from easier; women gained more Eastern to Western Front and nearly freedom win war in March 1918

Economic  Land nationalised and given to peasants  Banks were nationalised  Factories now run by the workers  Tsarist debts repudiated

The SR’s still won the elections to the Constituent Assembly in November 1917. In January 1918, Lenin closed it down and shot protesters A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 23 The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

The reasons why the humiliating treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed, were largely political and pragmatic. One motive was the Bolshevik need to retain the support of the army and meet the promises it had made. Another was to ensure peace at any price in case the Germans beat Russia in the field and damaged the prospect of the (Bolshevik) revolution succeeding. Trotsky, therefore, was always negotiating from a position of weakness, though it must be said that the Germans were themselves very keen to close the Eastern Front and transfer troops to their hard- pressed Western Front.

The treaty was harsh and humiliating to Russia (one Soviet negotiator committed suicide on the spot after hearing the terms!), but arguably it was better than the alternative: fighting on in a hopeless situation with a thoroughly de-moralised army. Trotsky had not wanted to sign, but was forced to by Lenin, who knew Trotsky would get the blame.

The German decision to help Lenin get to Russia in 1917 had paid off!

However, by sending home as part of the treaty thousands of POWs who had imbibed revolutionary ideas, Russia was also infecting Germany with radical and dangerous ideas. This would become apparent in the October revolutions and mutinies, in 1918 Germany.

(Fortunately, for Russia, most of these terms were overturned by the victorious allies, in the 1919 Paris treaties).

Russia had to give up her western lands (Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine & Georgia). What had taken the Tsars centuries to conquer were to be given away in a matter of months. 33% of Russia’s population was to disappear.

Russia was also (Given these terms it fined 300 million Terms of the Treaty of is hard to feel gold roubles by Brest-Litovsk sympathy for Germany. Germany over Versailles!)

Russia was to lose: 62 million people; 27% of her farmland; 26% of her railways; and a massive 74% of her iron and coal resources. Outrageous! A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 24 The Civil War (The War of Foreign Intervention) 1918-21 The treaty of Brest-Litovsk was not very popular with the Western allies, as it meant the arrival of millions of German troops on the Western Front, freed from their commitments in the East. The net result was the German spring offensive of 1918 (the Kaiserschlacht), which very nearly destroyed the allies in the West. The Western allies were, therefore, determined to get Russia back into the war. They also wanted to overthrow the dangerously subversive communist government, which threatened world revolution and which promised to give the plebs, dangerous, egalitarian ideas. Many of the western powers, especially the French, were also owed vast sums by a country, which had repudiated these (Tsarist) debts.

The 40 000 strong Czech Legion were an infamous band of ‘Whites’ who took over stations and towns along the Trans-Siberian and were the initial centre of anti-Bolshevik opposition. All over Russia, governments were established and an anti-Bolshevik People’s Army advanced on Moscow, capturing the gold reserves at Kazan (650 million gold roubles).

In May 1918, anti-Bolshevik soldiers took control of the vital Trans- Siberian railway. The White forces (initially under Kornilov and later under Denikin), as they came to be known, were a (disastrously) disparate and divided group of Tsarists, aristocrats, liberals, democrats and even socialists. Peasants were forced to serve as conscripts and 80% deserted. The Western allies (GB, France, USA and Japan, even Serbia) supplied troops and equipment both during and after WWI. Japan and Poland hoped to use the situation to grab territory, while after WWI, even Germany became involved, determined to secure her eastern borders and stop the spread of communism.

Japan seized the eastern port of Vladivostock; the French and British seized Murmansk and Archangel. The Poles took a huge slice of Russian territory. At home though, the British were divided, with Lloyd George against intervention and the rabidly anti-Bolshevik Churchill in favour. Lloyd George was worried most perhaps at the fiscal cost to the British and the fact that the French were not pulling their weight.

Foreign intervention allowed the Bolsheviks to present the war as an anti- imperialist and nationalist struggle, and to appeal to the international working class movement. Trotsky went about recruiting even ex-Tsarist officers and NCOs, though having them watched by political commissars. It went on to 1921, and became increasingly ruthless and bloody. Many millions (perhaps up to 15 million), were killed or died through the famines that resulted from the conflagration. The Whites getting too close, also resulted in the butchering of the ex-imperial family at Ekaterinburg (victims of the Red Terror).

In 1920, industrial production was no more than 1/7th of what it had been in 1913. An almost medieval economy of barter returned, after the rouble collapsed in value. The war also created a siege mentality amongst the Bolshevik elite (many of whom, like Trotsky and Stalin, made their names in the war), which was to culminate in the severe nationalistic paranoia of Stalin’s regime. In many ways, the civil war (a misnomer of a name) helped to lead to WWII (the Nazi-Soviet Pact) and even the Cold War. In the short-term it led to the equally disastrous policy of War Communism A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 25 and the so-called Red Terror when the bourgeoisie and the peasantry were persecuted. A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 26 CAUSES OF THE OCTOBER 1917 REVOLUTION

Peasant Uprisings

Desire to End Kornilov’s Involvement in Mutiny WWI

Army Continuing Food The Provisional Mutinies/Continuing Shortages Government’s Military Defeats Mistakes

Bolshevik Lenin’s April Theses Propaganda

No Strong Leadership in PG

Look at the jumbled reasons for the first revolution of 1917. All were important, but some more so than others. Rearrange them into their relative order of importance, with the most important at the top and the least significant near the bottom of the diamond. A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 27 War Communism

Lenin’s system of coping with the demands of a vicious and draining civil war became known as War Communism.

It was a means of both keeping the Red Army supplied and a method of introducing communism to Russian society.

There were 5 basic aspects of War Communism:

 Factories taken over by the government. Vesenkha, a government organisation, decided what each industry should produce;  Workers came under government control. Strikers could be shot. ‘Labour armies’ were created for the unemployed;  Private trading was banned. Peasants could not sell their surplus for profit, but now had to give it to the government; in response many hid their surplus and resisted those sent to seize their grain;  Money was allowed to lose its value. Rents, railway fares, postal charges and many other charges were abolished;  In cities, food was strictly rationed, with the bourgeoisie receiving less;

All these provisions helped the Red Army to win. However, there were many problems with the system:

 The peasants had no motive to grow more than the minimum;  Food shortages resulted in 1920, and starvation in 1920-21;  25 million Russians ended up living below subsistence level, and at least 7 million starved to death;  Thousands of protesters were shot dead in the 1921 Kronstadt naval mutinies;  The number of industrial workers fell from 3 million in 1917 to only 1.2 million by 1922, as people abandoned the cities;

There were also other reasons for Bolshevik success though in the War other than War Communism. These included:

 The divisions within the Whites;  The Red Army was better led and motivated;  The Reds used the railways system more efficiently;  The nationalist nature of the War also favoured the Bolsheviks;

What problems arise from a barter system? Who does it most tend to benefit?

“Comrades…” Lenin Addresses The Red Army During The Civil War, 1919 A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 28 The New Economic Policy (NEP)

The NEP was a pragmatic gesture designed to replace the idealistic, but impractical War Communism so ruthlessly carried out by Trotsky and Lenin.

War Communism had been widely opposed and had resulted in starvation, widespread discontent and the naval mutiny at Kronstadt (1921), which had been rigorously and brutally put down by Trotsky and the Red Army.

It had been intended to maximise the efficiency of agriculture, industry and the Army in its fight against the Whites and foreign interventionist forces.

In March 1921 though, War Communism was abandoned in favour of a gentler more practical approach – the NEP designed by Lenin.

The NEP introduced or brought back policies previously outlawed. Now:

 Peasants could sell their surpluses for profit again;  Increased food production was encouraged and rewarded by lower taxes;  Very small factories (those employing under 20) were given back to their owners;  Money was re-introduced under a new revalued rouble ;  Private traders (Nepmen) buying and selling for profit were allowed;  Russia even accepted aid from its former enemies the British, French, Americans and Germans who sent food, medicine, and clothing;

Some hard-line Bolsheviks (‘Platform of 46’) resented the NEP as a reactionary move, but by 1925 the system of what Lenin called ‘state capitalism’ had begun to work. Food and industrial production went back to close pre-WWI levels. More land was cultivated; Coal, steel, finished cloth, electricity also saw a rise in output. The state tended to concentrate on industry, leaving agriculture and trade to private enterprise. Because of this, industry remained somewhat backward in comparison with the successes of agriculture (what Trotsky described as the ‘Scissors Crisis’). It would be Stalin and his ruthless policy of modernisation and industrialisation at all costs who would ultimately solve the disparity.

80.1m 72.5m

k Grain Harvests 50.3m (Millions of Tonnes)

1913 1922 1925 A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 29 Lenin’s Impact

In 1923, a new constitution established the USSR, as a union of four republics (Russia, Byelorussia, Ukraine and the Caucasus). Stalin would then add to it.

Each republic was to have its own government responsible for health, welfare and education. However, the Central Committee retained control over national issues such as: the armed forces; the secret police, communications and industry.

Lenin retained supreme power within the politburo. He left at his premature death, in 1924, a society that had both benefited and suffered from his short tenure of power.

NEP led to dramatic economic recovery and was popular and successful - and was a case of the Politburo listening to the peoples’ demands

Civil marriages and 8 Hour Days; 2 divorce made less weeks paid complex; co-habitation holidays; sick pay; and even ‘free love’ unemployment became possible +VES benefits and pensions; education was improved and Unrestricted abortion illiteracy tackled; allowed Russian women freedom from the tyranny of childbirth & huge families

Lenin established the one-party state that was to dominate the USSR until 1989. A secret police (the Cheka), censorship, gulags and a ban on free speech were now all in place – again, as under the Tsars. Massacres of political opponents, as at Baku, Petrograd and Kronstadt were common under Lenin

Many social problems had Religion was not been solved and high suppressed; unemployment remained in Atheism enforced 1925 & buildings (1/7th of the population) -VES destroyed; War Communism had been a Russia’s culture disaster was desecrated

Education controlled to stop original thinking or questioning of the regime Many subjects, like history, abolished; the ability to read propaganda and be of use to the State were perhaps the prime motives of the regime; A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 30 MARXIST AND NON-MARXIST ELEMENTS OF LENIN’S RULE – DID HE ESTABLISH A TRUE MARXIST STATE?

MARXIST NON-MARXIST Personal Details of Lenin

Political Policy

Economic Policy

Social Policy

Religious Policy

Conclusion A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 31 Historiography on Russian History Pre-1917  J.N. Westwood points out that there were 3228 peasant disorders in 1905, but that had stabilised to only 128 in 1913; at the same time he argues that without WWI there might still have been violent change anyway;  Edward Acton has disputed the view that things were getting better by 1914 and points out that peasant disturbances were down because of things like excellent harvests, etc. and not because of Stolypin’s reforms;  Hans Rogger points out that conditions in the towns and cities deteriorated between 1910-1914 and that things had not improved much at all;  Richard Charques points out that pogroms against the Jews were frequently used to divert criticism away from the government; 1917  Allan Todd is adamant that it was WWI that pushed Russia into revolution, and points out this was a viewpoint held by Lenin himself;  Haimson, Geyer, Von Laue, Koenker, Smith all argue that revolution would have come anyway without war and while it initially postponed the inevitable, it later acted as a catalyst;  Katkov, Kennan, McKean, Weislo in contrast argue that revolution was not likely before WWI and that it was the war which triggered it; they stress the conspiracy of political activists and downplay the role of ordinary factory workers; they also say how stable Tsarism was before 1914;  Todd emphasises that it was the PG’s determination to pursue WWI that caused its downfall, along with the actions of the radical political groups like the Bolsheviks, though he emphasises the latter stepped into a ‘political vacuum’ in late 1917, rather than embarking on a serious overthrow;  Acton argues that the masses precipitated the October revolution, and were not brainwashed by the Bolsheviks, but were trying to assert their human dignity;  Kaiser argues the opposite and says the October Revolution was carried out by a “small clique of activists”;  To E.H. Carr and Acton Lenin was the crucial figure for the success of the October Revolution given his prestige, organisational abilities and strategies were all essential to Bolshevik success; 1918-21  Todd says that the Bolsheviks won the Civil War because they were able to gain control over the central part of Russia where their greater industrial capacity gave them better supplies; the Red Army was more motivated and dedicated, and had the support of the peasants who wanted to hold onto their newly acquired lands; while the Whites had also committed atrocities, like the Reds, and so could make little political capital from them;  R. Tucker stresses the degree to which the party machine, during the Civil War, became accustomed to administrative diktats rather than democratic discussion, as an acceptable form of government;  Pipes emphasises it was the members of the Communist Party who helped to win the Civil War; A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 32 COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS BETWEEN LENIN AND TROTSKY

TROTSKY

Personal Details Trotsky was a Jew and so always & Characters something of an outsider in a highly anti-Semitic country; a highly educated polyglot, a gifted orator and writer (his nickname was ‘The Pen’) he was regarded as brilliant, but arrogant and aloof; he was hated by the jealous Stalin who realised his abilities threatened his own ambitions; Political Policy Trotsky was a great orator and organizer; he had been prominent in the 1905 and the 1917 revolutions; originally a Menshevik he was won over to Bolshevism by Lenin who saw his abilities; he was responsible fro organizing and leading the Red Army during the Civil War; he ruthlessly quelled the Kronstadt Mutiny, in 1921, killing and executing thousands and exiling others to gulags in Siberia. Oxley credits him with the defeat of the Whites; Economic Policy A staunch proponent of War Communism and opponent of the NEP; arguably more of a pure, doctrinal Marxist than either Lenin or Stalin, he came out against the NEP in 1923. Louise Bryant's ‘Mirrors of Moscow’ calls Trotsky "the most dramatic character produced during the whole sweep of the Russian revolution and its only great organizer" Social Policy Like many of the Bolshevik elite, Trotsky had little time for the ordinary people whom he largely viewed contemptuously. This allowed the ostentatiously more popular Stalin to outmanoeuvre him, as he did with Lenin’s funeral. He advocated the policy of the state control of trade unions and their merging with the government. His inability to compromise, and his anti-Bolshevik past, had already made him many enemies. His stress on ‘permanent revolution’ went against Stalin’s much more popular (and pragmatic) ‘socialism in one country’ A Level History M. Nichols SCIE 2011 33 Foreign Policy An internationalist, he believed that to safeguard Russia’s revolution, it should be exported abroad and he believed in ideas of permanent revolution; he championed the cause of Marxism all over the world especially in Germany; Lenin pragmatically got Trotsky to negotiate with the Germans and the resulting, harsh treaty of Brest -Litovsk was blamed on him, even though it was Lenin who forced the reluctant Trotsky to sign it; Conclusions